As Befits a King - The Brainstorm

[Nicomacheus]

Interesting. So Alexander was more egalitarian than most of his Macedonian counterparts. Very interesting, adds a whole new dynamic to politics within a united Alexandrian empire.

Well, it's hard to say he was idealistically egalitarian. Sometimes he can be painted as such, but he was also ruthlessly pragmatic and so, could care less about supporting Greek supremacy if it made it harder to rule Persians and raise an army to conquer the world.

So, any specific reasons why some groups of Jews hellenized while others didn't? What stopped the Hellenization process IOTL?

Probably a host of them. Wealth was certainly a factor, but so too was the nature of Judaism at the time. The chronicles of the Old Testatment (Kings I and II and beyond) are full of parts of the Jewish people falling away from their faith. Josephus paints a picture of 1st century BC / AD Israel full of a vareity of different sects that all tooks different approaches to religion.

The Selecuids were usually pretty careful respecting toleration for the Jewish faith (until Antiochus IV), but it was the election of a High Priest named, IIRC, Hercules that really got the Maccabee's goat [the actual story of the revolt is way more complicated than the version where Antiochus passes a decree against the Jewish faith, but I can't recall it precisely without my sources at home.]

Furthermore, Hellenization was a crucial period for the development of Jewish idenity. By both spawning reaction and example, Hellenization helped to instil the sense of proper Jewish existence in a diaspora. If Greeks could still be Greek in Egypt, if being Greek were more a product of learned and practiced culture, than so too could Jews be Jews outside of Israel/Palestine and Jewish be as much knowledge based as practice based. In many ways, this marks the beginning of the evolution that led from Temple Judaism, with priests and sacrifice, to Rabbinic Juddaism (it did take 600 - 700 years), spawning Christianity along the way.

So you're saying that Alexander wouldn't have contained himself to just the cities, and would have done a tour de force as it were on the entire Arabian coastline?

No, the coastline would be sufficient for his purposes, if I'm right about him wanting to conquer so as to secure the rest of his conquests, campaigning in an orbit around and through the Empire, rather than an endless plunge in one direction.

It would be a very unwise decision on his part. Alexander was for all intents and purposes crazy, but I'm not sure even he would see the point in marching across the sand, in an area with the population density at this time of about 1 to every, what, 100 square miles?

Quite so. Given his adaptablity in other places and his strategic decisions to avoid some strongholds he could not beseige, I think concentrating on nominal conquest and flagshowing is best. He could probably get away with a few battles and being recognized as overlord.

That's a good point, although this is a man who was apparently spoiling to march to the mouth of the Ganges. Perhaps most of his conquests were motivated by the desire to reach the end of the world?

No doubt they were and no doubt Alexander was completely impulsive about it. IMO though he was also enough of a strategist to recognize that there was more than one direction in which to conquer. Perhaps the question is whether Alexander gets it into his head that he should not only conquer but explore: his return from India bears something of this notion, crossing modern Iran with his army on the shore and a supply train of ships close by, almost simply because it hadn't been done before.

Thanks! And can you speak to the Indian subcontinent? One of the major differences between the two maps was that in one there are three Indian kingdoms on one map that are not present on the other.

I beleive the first (the one without the purple) simple refers to "Dravidian Kingdoms" whereas the later actual names some of them. Even these names probably doesn't account for all the independent city-states and small principalities. From what research I've done on India at the time, identifying set states is sort of like mapping the HRE...except Indian conceptions of sovereignty, ownerships, and borders are different than European ones. My main preference in India was that the first map's borders for the Nanda Empire looked a bit too big to me, but I could be very wrong.

Interesting observation. But wouldn't seizing the Greeks' primary source of grain stir up an awful lot of trouble among them? Or do you think it would make the Greeks behave better? (As in, if they act up, Alexander with a word could stop grain shipments to Athens et al.)

Actually, I tend to think the Greeks might like the idea. Unlike Persia, which seems to have been well settled and with a set system of land tenure, this land was inhabitated by a mix of settled and tribal peoples. The great thing about tribal peoples is that they are easier to displace and colonize than settled ones. Furtermore, it could probably let Alexander hand out more land to Macedonians themselves, to ease tensions. While some of the Greeks might realize the potential stranglehold Alexander would have if he possessed all that farmland, Alexander can beat them and with that land in his possesion he's in control of 2/3 of the major Mediterranean graneries (in the 4th century), Egypt and the Black Sea (with Sicily being the other). Plus I'd figure on Alexander having to sort out the Greek states at some point, they're just looking for a reason to revolt (that and Demosthenes isn't dead yet, IIRC).

Furthermore, after the conquests I list, Sicily is actually the next big question. It's the biggest population of Greeks that Alexander doesn't rule and could become involved in a Greek uprising (though not likely considering that most of Sicily is under the rule of Dionysian Tyrants). These Greeks, though, will be fighting the Carthaginians about this time. They may also seek alliances with their compatriots in Southern Italy.

 

[Nicomacheus]

General Announcement: FINALLY squared-away exactly how Chandragupta was able to rise to power. According to this source, those put in charge of the Indian provinces were particularly inept, and it was the slaying of Porus (perhaps the one best able to keep control for Alexander in the early years in that region) that signaled a rebellion which Chandragupta was able to use to his advantage.

Had Alexander continued to live, this could very well be butterflied away. Alexander would certainly have kept an eye on the happenings of India, and would have seen to it that Porus wouldn't have been killed, IMHO.

Quite agree. Fits with what I've read. IMO this means his rise to power is very contingnent, but it's hard to figure out what happens without him; hence, it may be just as historical to include him in some way, just not as per OTL.

Additionally, you might want to keep in mind that the historical development of Buddhism is quite open to change.

 

[Tobit]

Sorry to miss out on some of the conversation, and I think Thermoplae brought up many good points. I am unclear on one thing though. Where is the Center of Alexanders empire? Will he continue to be on campaign while his generals rule in his stead? Is the center wherever Alexander is or is there some other ideas on this?

 

[Nicomacheus]

Sorry to miss out on some of the conversation, and I think Thermoplae brought up many good points. I am unclear on one thing though. Where is the Center of Alexanders empire? Will he continue to be on campaign while his generals rule in his stead? Is the center wherever Alexander is or is there some other ideas on this?

Juding by OTL there are two answers: 1) Alexander's empire didn't have much peace time existence, so where-ever Alexander is becomes the de facto center and 2) Alexander did declare Babylon his capital IIRC. He largely adopted the Persian system of satrapies, but left Macedon and Greece under the control of Antipater as Regent. While these were administrative centers, the Alexandrian Empire lacked cohesion or any unifiying center of gravity (particularly since it attempted to bridge Persian and Greek cultures). The potential for centripetal forces is part of what might make a circular route of conquest appealing: it keeps Alexander on constant tour of the Empire's borders, close at hand for any trouble that might brew.

Of course, the sheer fact of Alexander's longer life is liable to effect pretty massive change, since the Empire will probably develop more institutional momentum and since Alexander himself may have to deal with rebellions. I beleive there was some sort of plot to kill him for which Craterus was falsely accused.

 

[Thermopylae]

Probably a host of them. Wealth was certainly a factor, but so too was the nature of Judaism at the time. The chronicles of the Old Testatment (Kings I and II and beyond) are full of parts of the Jewish people falling away from their faith. Josephus paints a picture of 1st century BC / AD Israel full of a vareity of different sects that all tooks different approaches to religion.

The Selecuids were usually pretty careful respecting toleration for the Jewish faith (until Antiochus IV), but it was the election of a High Priest named, IIRC, Hercules that really got the Maccabee's goat [the actual story of the revolt is way more complicated than the version where Antiochus passes a decree against the Jewish faith, but I can't recall it precisely without my sources at home.]

Furthermore, Hellenization was a crucial period for the development of Jewish idenity. By both spawning reaction and example, Hellenization helped to instil the sense of proper Jewish existence in a diaspora. If Greeks could still be Greek in Egypt, if being Greek were more a product of learned and practiced culture, than so too could Jews be Jews outside of Israel/Palestine and Jewish be as much knowledge based as practice based. In many ways, this marks the beginning of the evolution that led from Temple Judaism, with priests and sacrifice, to Rabbinic Juddaism (it did take 600 - 700 years), spawning Christianity along the way.

Interesting observations, but I'm not entirely sure what it would all add up to. It sounds to me that things wouldn't really change all that much for the Jews ITTL, no? You'd have some Hellenized Jews some non-Hellenized Jews.

Quite so. Given his adaptablity in other places and his strategic decisions to avoid some strongholds he could not beseige, I think concentrating on nominal conquest and flagshowing is best. He could probably get away with a few battles and being recognized as overlord.

Nominal conquest of the Arabian peninsula, certainly.

Alexander might not have been all that interested in trade routes, but I'm sure at least one of his generals would be VERY interested in being made local strongman of the Yemen area (The Spice routes from southern India and the horn of Africa, along with a significant amount of the ivory trade).

It seems to me that there's enough money involved for a Diadochus or perhaps Diadochi to spring up in that particular area, for at least a short time post-Empire.

No doubt they were and no doubt Alexander was completely impulsive about it. IMO though he was also enough of a strategist to recognize that there was more than one direction in which to conquer. Perhaps the question is whether Alexander gets it into his head that he should not only conquer but explore: his return from India bears something of this notion, crossing modern Iran with his army on the shore and a supply train of ships close by, almost simply because it hadn't been done before.

One of the sources in my first post actually details that Alexander ordered one of his higher-ups to take command of some of the ships on the way back from India and to sail around the entire Arabian peninsula, from Muscat to the modern day Suez, doubtless as both exploration, and reconnaissance for a future conquest.

I beleive the first (the one without the purple) simple refers to "Dravidian Kingdoms" whereas the later actual names some of them. Even these names probably doesn't account for all the independent city-states and small principalities. From what research I've done on India at the time, identifying set states is sort of like mapping the HRE...except Indian conceptions of sovereignty, ownerships, and borders are different than European ones. My main preference in India was that the first map's borders for the Nanda Empire looked a bit too big to me, but I could be very wrong.

I'll go with that one, then. The source I posted earlier even said that by 323 BC it was highly likely that some of the outlying provinces of the Nanda empire began to break away (in fact, if I were to guess the impending invasion of Alexander emboldened these local rulers to rebel against the Nanda)

Actually, I tend to think the Greeks might like the idea. Unlike Persia, which seems to have been well settled and with a set system of land tenure, this land was inhabitated by a mix of settled and tribal peoples. The great thing about tribal peoples is that they are easier to displace and colonize than settled ones. Furtermore, it could probably let Alexander hand out more land to Macedonians themselves, to ease tensions. While some of the Greeks might realize the potential stranglehold Alexander would have if he possessed all that farmland, Alexander can beat them and with that land in his possesion he's in control of 2/3 of the major Mediterranean graneries (in the 4th century), Egypt and the Black Sea (with Sicily being the other). Plus I'd figure on Alexander having to sort out the Greek states at some point, they're just looking for a reason to revolt (that and Demosthenes isn't dead yet, IIRC).

It's interesting what you say about handing out land to the Macedonians, and it's a good idea. Sort of like the Marian reforms, no? Alexander certainly was pragmatic enough to do so. He wanted to send out Greek colonists anyway.

Furthermore, after the conquests I list, Sicily is actually the next big question. It's the biggest population of Greeks that Alexander doesn't rule and could become involved in a Greek uprising (though not likely considering that most of Sicily is under the rule of Dionysian Tyrants). These Greeks, though, will be fighting the Carthaginians about this time. They may also seek alliances with their compatriots in Southern Italy.

Do you think the Sicilian Greeks would actually INVITE Alexander, to beat back the Carthaginians?

It would be very interesting to see how the balance of power shifts if one empire had control of all 3 Mediterranean breadbaskets (Sicily, Egypt, the Black Sea) Not even Rome REALLY managed to do that, AFAIK (Black Sea?)

@Tobit

Nicomacheus gave you the best answer there. Babylon was kind of the de jure center of his empire, although his empire was really in its infancy and the capital could very likely have moved over time.

Alexander's prolonged life will give his empire a chance to work out the best way of governing itself, and it could even POTENTIALLY become stable for at least one more generation.

@Nicomacheus

Interesting point about circular route of conquest. I could see Alexander campaigning closer to "home" in the last ten years or so of his life, as his body gets weaker.

 

[Thermopylae]

Oh, and here's an unrelated logistics question for anybody to answer:

How long would it take an army to travel from, say, Macedon to Mesopotamia? Or, alternatively, Macedonia to India? Without having to worry about conquering anything in between (it took Alexander a considerable amount of time because of that reason)

Also, how much water did a ship generally cover in one day back in the 4th century BC?

I'm asking these questions because I plan on describing campaigns in great detail, and in order to do that I need to have some reference for how fast these armies and navies can march.

EDIT: I know that the Mauryan dynasty was instrumental in spreading Buddhism outside of India. So, assuming Chandragupta Maurya fails to overthrow the Nanda dynasty, what happens if there's no Mauryan dynasty?

I personally think its up for grabs. The Greeks were actually quite responsive to Buddhism IOTL, and I could easily see Buddhism thriving even more under Greek rule. But if the Greeks don't establish a permanent foothold in India, then again, it's really quite up for grabs.

Any ideas?

 

[Nicomacheus]

Interesting observations, but I'm not entirely sure what it would all add up to. It sounds to me that things wouldn't really change all that much for the Jews ITTL, no? You'd have some Hellenized Jews some non-Hellenized Jews.

Probably so. Nevertheless, there may still be some differences, I suspect. I will do some research on the specifics and get back to you, if you'd like.

Alexander might not have been all that interested in trade routes, but I'm sure at least one of his generals would be VERY interested in being made local strongman of the Yemen area (The Spice routes from southern India and the horn of Africa, along with a significant amount of the ivory trade).

Indeed. I know that by the late Republic, the trade in frankencense was substanital enough that Arab merchants had a reputation for luxury oddly similar to that granted by their modern oil wealth.

It seems to me that there's enough money involved for a Diadochus or perhaps Diadochi to spring up in that particular area, for at least a short time post-Empire.

It would substantially change political matters and most likely cultural ones too.

One of the sources in my first post actually details that Alexander ordered one of his higher-ups to take command of some of the ships on the way back from India and to sail around the entire Arabian peninsula, from Muscat to the modern day Suez, doubtless as both exploration, and reconnaissance for a future conquest.

Yup. It always seemed to me a potential sign that Alexander's campaigns might adopt a more exploratory caliber to them.

It's interesting what you say about handing out land to the Macedonians, and it's a good idea. Sort of like the Marian reforms, no? Alexander certainly was pragmatic enough to do so. He wanted to send out Greek colonists anyway.

Well, he had sent out colonists, usually combined colonies of Macedonian and Greek veterans with Persians in all the Alexandrias. This is essentially the same as giving the veterans shares of the spoils of conquest, already a feature of the professional Macedonian army. There is an aspect of the Marian reforms if Alexander begins to offer land to colonists who aren't veterans of his army, but simply thetes in the big Greek cities who'd probably jump at the chance to strike it out on their own (though presumably some had joined up anyway as a chance to win remuneration). This will decrease the concentration of population in the Greek states, cement the loyalty of the Greek masses and win the admiration of a good portion of the upper classes, who would now be more dominant in their own poleis. This might therefore be a way to acheive what Antipater acheived through force (forcing the aristocratization of Athens, Thebes, and other Greek demoracies) through means that wouldn't require intruding on the nominal political autonomy of the "members of the League of Corinth."

Do you think the Sicilian Greeks would actually INVITE Alexander, to beat back the Carthaginians?

Big question. It really depends on the nature of the politics of the Greek states of Sicily. About the time of Alexander's conquests, Syracuse was under a nominal open constitution but dominated by Timoleon, something of a Periclean or Augustan figure. In 317, Agathocles became tyrant of the city and went to war with Carthage. Like most Syracusan and Sicilian Greek expeditions, he couldn't finally defeat the Carthaginians and the peace he made with them formalized a division between Greek and Carthaginian spheres on the island that persisted into the mid-third century and the beginning of the course that led to the Punic wars. That's a long way of saying that Syracusan leaders tended to use wars with Carthage to solidify their own power base; indeed, Carthage actually pro-actively fought Timoleon when he sought power becaue it feared the rise of another Dionysius (the first two tyrants were the most successful). Agathocles even went so far as to sytle himself king of Sicily after his war with Carthage. Hence, it would take an interesting turn of events for Alexander to be called in. Such a turn of events wouldn't be impossible, though, particularly if the oligarchs usually at odds with the tyrants thought Alexander and Macedonian rule would benefit them. Carthage though is pretty certain to intervene if Macedon-Persia does, however, which means Alexander will need to be ready to fight a different sort of campaign, one primarily naval.

It would be very interesting to see how the balance of power shifts if one empire had control of all 3 Mediterranean breadbaskets (Sicily, Egypt, the Black Sea) Not even Rome REALLY managed to do that, AFAIK (Black Sea?)

At the height of her power, Rome did at least claim suzerainty over the Crimea. Plus control of the Bosporus amounted (to a Mediteranean power) to effectual control over the grain exports of the Black Sea.

The more interesting dynamic is that Alexander's Empire will control these three graneries without controling the entire Mediteranean basin. That could change a lot in the development of Rome and other large cities (since most cities didn't require imports on the scale of Athens and other large urban centers); it will also change the ability of his Empire to control the urban centers that depend on those breadbaskets--the extent of which is the subject of some disagreement among scholars.

Development of sufficient agriculture in the North of Europe to support Graeco-Roman levels of urbanization (and hence non tribal civilization) would probably require early knowledge of the heavy iron moldboard plough. If Alexander's Empire results in a bit more sustained East-West contact, perhaps the Han Chinese version finds it way to Northern Europe a millenia earlier than OTL.

 

[Thermopylae]

Probably so. Nevertheless, there may still be some differences, I suspect. I will do some research on the specifics and get back to you, if you'd like.

Well if you would like to do that I certainly wouldn't stop you, and it would be of immense help.

It would substantially change political matters and most likely cultural ones too.

It would certainly bring Arabia closer to the west earlier on. Arabia was for most people at that time an almost mythical place. Constant contact with the Diadochi would help to bring Arabia into a much larger cultural sphere.

Well, he had sent out colonists, usually combined colonies of Macedonian and Greek veterans with Persians in all the Alexandrias. This is essentially the same as giving the veterans shares of the spoils of conquest, already a feature of the professional Macedonian army. There is an aspect of the Marian reforms if Alexander begins to offer land to colonists who aren't veterans of his army, but simply thetes in the big Greek cities who'd probably jump at the chance to strike it out on their own (though presumably some had joined up anyway as a chance to win remuneration). This will decrease the concentration of population in the Greek states, cement the loyalty of the Greek masses and win the admiration of a good portion of the upper classes, who would now be more dominant in their own poleis. This might therefore be a way to acheive what Antipater acheived through force (forcing the aristocratization of Athens, Thebes, and other Greek demoracies) through means that wouldn't require intruding on the nominal political autonomy of the "members of the League of Corinth."

Really does kill two birds with one stone, doesn't it? Three birds really. Gets the nice blend of cultures that Alexander was aiming for, pacifies the Macedonians and Greeks, and makes the rather troublesome Greek cities more peaceful. Some objections I would imagine would come from some of Alexander's longest-serving veterans ("They didn't fight, they shouldn't be given this land"), but that's a much more manageable problem, I'd say.

Question regarding Hellenization: Was it a two-way process? That is to say, was there any real attempt to introduce eastern ideas into Macedon/Greece? I'm pretty sure the answer's "no," as it would needlessly anger the generally-agreeable Macedonian court, but I was just checking.

Big question. It really depends on the nature of the politics of the Greek states of Sicily. About the time of Alexander's conquests, Syracuse was under a nominal open constitution but dominated by Timoleon, something of a Periclean or Augustan figure. In 317, Agathocles became tyrant of the city and went to war with Carthage. Like most Syracusan and Sicilian Greek expeditions, he couldn't finally defeat the Carthaginians and the peace he made with them formalized a division between Greek and Carthaginian spheres on the island that persisted into the mid-third century and the beginning of the course that led to the Punic wars. That's a long way of saying that Syracusan leaders tended to use wars with Carthage to solidify their own power base; indeed, Carthage actually pro-actively fought Timoleon when he sought power becaue it feared the rise of another Dionysius (the first two tyrants were the most successful). Agathocles even went so far as to sytle himself king of Sicily after his war with Carthage. Hence, it would take an interesting turn of events for Alexander to be called in. Such a turn of events wouldn't be impossible, though, particularly if the oligarchs usually at odds with the tyrants thought Alexander and Macedonian rule would benefit them. Carthage though is pretty certain to intervene if Macedon-Persia does, however, which means Alexander will need to be ready to fight a different sort of campaign, one primarily naval.

According to Diodorus Siculus (who apparently drew heavily on Cleitarchus [no surviving works] who in turn drew heavily on Alexander's soldiers' stories) he was planning a HUGE expedition against Carthage, ordering the construction of a massive fleet in the Cilicia/Cyprus area. I think I linked to the source in my first post.

Should Alexander succeed in seizing the Carthaginian half of the island, I don't think it would take long for the Greek Sicilians to offer their loyalty.

The more interesting dynamic is that Alexander's Empire will control these three graneries without controling the entire Mediteranean basin. That could change a lot in the development of Rome and other large cities (since most cities didn't require imports on the scale of Athens and other large urban centers); it will also change the ability of his Empire to control the urban centers that depend on those breadbaskets--the extent of which is the subject of some disagreement among scholars.

Would it be fair to say that Alexander's empire would almost be a hydraulic empire (but with food instead of water)? It would certainly keep some of the larger cities at peace.

One wonders how cities outside of the empire's sphere would develop. They would essentially be beholden to whoever has all three of these breadbaskets.

At least initially. I could imagine a push for self-sufficiency after a while. Though one could definitely make the case that no large empire can exist without the control of a large breadbasket.

Development of sufficient agriculture in the North of Europe to support Graeco-Roman levels of urbanization (and hence non tribal civilization) would probably require early knowledge of the heavy iron moldboard plough. If Alexander's Empire results in a bit more sustained East-West contact, perhaps the Han Chinese version finds it way to Northern Europe a millenia earlier than OTL.

Well when did the heavy iron moldboard plough reach India (or did it skip India)? If we have continued successor presence in India, I could VERY easily see the idea traveling swiftly west.

 

[Nicomacheus]

Really does kill two birds with one stone, doesn't it? Three birds really. Gets the nice blend of cultures that Alexander was aiming for, pacifies the Macedonians and Greeks, and makes the rather troublesome Greek cities more peaceful. Some objections I would imagine would come from some of Alexander's longest-serving veterans ("They didn't fight, they shouldn't be given this land"), but that's a much more manageable problem, I'd say.

Yup. It could very well a huge change as it has the possibility to allow for continued unity among the Greeks and Macedonians even through the eventual collapse of Alexander's Empire itself.

Question regarding Hellenization: Was it a two-way process? That is to say, was there any real attempt to introduce eastern ideas into Macedon/Greece? I'm pretty sure the answer's "no," as it would needlessly anger the generally-agreeable Macedonian court, but I was just checking.

An interesting question. Your suspiscion is correct, that there weren't overt attempts, but some of the circumstances in Greece began to change and some of them had Persian cultural overtones. First and foremost, being ruled / policed by the Regent in Macedon was a lot more like being a subject of the Persian Empire than anything the Greeks had dealt with before. Nevertheless, the city states of the League of Corinth seem to have had substantial autonomy for domestic affairs, but a Greece without the constant schemeing of 1,000+ poleis is a very, very different place.

Second, Antipater and his successors managed to strangle Athenian democracy by forcibly changing the constitution (IIRC after the revolt in 322 upon Alexander's death). That also cemented the rise of aristocracy begun by Athens' defeat in the Peloponnesian War, not just in fact but in the minds of philosophers, a big culutural legacy. If the Athenians and other liked mined cities become accustomed to Macedonian overlordship through the League of Corinth but suffer no further revolts or tumults, then something of a democratic mindset might last.

Third, Hellenization itself changed Greek culture (not in Persian ways, but in important ones). The export of the culture perfected an indealized version of it, making it harder to preserve all the local differences that characterized Greece previously. This impacted language (from the classical dialects to the development of Koine) and culture (by diminishing the importance of local deity cults or at least precipitating powershifts among them).

According to Diodorus Siculus (who apparently drew heavily on Cleitarchus [no surviving works] who in turn drew heavily on Alexander's soldiers' stories) he was planning a HUGE expedition against Carthage, ordering the construction of a massive fleet in the Cilicia/Cyprus area. I think I linked to the source in my first post.

Should Alexander succeed in seizing the Carthaginian half of the island, I don't think it would take long for the Greek Sicilians to offer their loyalty.

Ah, forgot that (and forgot which sources said what; my area of greatest expertise runs through about 357-4). Sounds like DS should be a good source if you're certain of his source (my general rule for reading DS).

Probably true then that at least the Sicilians will offer loyalty, but I'd still expect that loyalty to take the form of Alexander favoring a local ruling oligarchy rather than a local tyrant (if only because the former would find it more difficult to unite against him). It'd be interesting to see how he organizes the politics of the Greeks on the island, whether he admits them to the League of Corinth or creates a new League for them or simply leaves them as unaffiliated dependencies. He and Phillip may differ sharply here since I suspect Philip's construction of the League of Corinth had a lot to do with his experiences manipulating the politics of existing Greek institutions (the Delphic Amphictionic council most of all).

Would it be fair to say that Alexander's empire would almost be a hydraulic empire (but with food instead of water)? It would certainly keep some of the larger cities at peace.

One wonders how cities outside of the empire's sphere would develop. They would essentially be beholden to whoever has all three of these breadbaskets.

At least initially. I could imagine a push for self-sufficiency after a while. Though one could definitely make the case that no large empire can exist without the control of a large breadbasket.

Probably true, though it largely depends on the kind of Empire. Something like Carthage or maybe a loan Massilia (Greek Colony at Marseilles), far enough from Macedon and Persia to pursue de facto or formal independence could develop something like a mercantile confederacy like Carthage did.

Additionally, though, there's the question of what happens to the Empire when Alexander dies and what parts remain united. The Mediterranean effects will only show up if one power continues to hold the breadbaskets. If they're split up like OTL, then they're conquerable and will trade willingly. If Alexander does make more formal conquests in the Mediterranean, then his Empire is less Persia with Greece tacked on and more a seperate Greek sphere and a seperate Persian sphere (Egypt and Arabia might either be their own spheres or dominated by Greeks and Persians respectively).

Well when did the heavy iron moldboard plough reach India (or did it skip India)? If we have continued successor presence in India, I could VERY easily see the idea traveling swiftly west.

I'm not sure, but that's an excellent question. Unfortunately, I've found very few good sources (outside of textbooks) on ancient India.

 

[Thermopylae]

An interesting question. Your suspiscion is correct, that there weren't overt attempts, but some of the circumstances in Greece began to change and some of them had Persian cultural overtones. First and foremost, being ruled / policed by the Regent in Macedon was a lot more like being a subject of the Persian Empire than anything the Greeks had dealt with before. Nevertheless, the city states of the League of Corinth seem to have had substantial autonomy for domestic affairs, but a Greece without the constant schemeing of 1,000+ poleis is a very, very different place.

Second, Antipater and his successors managed to strangle Athenian democracy by forcibly changing the constitution (IIRC after the revolt in 322 upon Alexander's death). That also cemented the rise of aristocracy begun by Athens' defeat in the Peloponnesian War, not just in fact but in the minds of philosophers, a big culutural legacy. If the Athenians and other liked mined cities become accustomed to Macedonian overlordship through the League of Corinth but suffer no further revolts or tumults, then something of a democratic mindset might last.

Third, Hellenization itself changed Greek culture (not in Persian ways, but in important ones). The export of the culture perfected an indealized version of it, making it harder to preserve all the local differences that characterized Greece previously. This impacted language (from the classical dialects to the development of Koine) and culture (by diminishing the importance of local deity cults or at least precipitating powershifts among them).

Very interesting. So Hellenization almost began a process of homogenization of Greek culture even on the peninsula.

It seems to me that this would all add up to a stronger, more centralized Greece, under (most likely) Macedonian suzerainty, no? Which certainly would make for an interesting dynamic post-Empire.

One question that keeps coming up in my mind: Why was it that the Antipatrid dynasty was so antidemocratic?

Probably true then that at least the Sicilians will offer loyalty, but I'd still expect that loyalty to take the form of Alexander favoring a local ruling oligarchy rather than a local tyrant (if only because the former would find it more difficult to unite against him). It'd be interesting to see how he organizes the politics of the Greeks on the island, whether he admits them to the League of Corinth or creates a new League for them or simply leaves them as unaffiliated dependencies. He and Phillip may differ sharply here since I suspect Philip's construction of the League of Corinth had a lot to do with his experiences manipulating the politics of existing Greek institutions (the Delphic Amphictionic council most of all).

Perhaps. I don't really know what advantage an independent league for Sicily would have over admittance into the League of Corinth, and vice versa. The only thing that I could see is that admitting Sicily into the League of Corinth would give the Athenians et al. a bit more control over one of the three breadbaskets. Which in and of itself would have its upsides and downsides.

Probably true, though it largely depends on the kind of Empire. Something like Carthage or maybe a loan Massilia (Greek Colony at Marseilles), far enough from Macedon and Persia to pursue de facto or formal independence could develop something like a mercantile confederacy like Carthage did.

Massalia, Emporion, and the various Greek states on the Mediterranean (coastal Iberia and Gaul) are definitely a bit out of the way for even Alexander. I like the idea of Massalia being given a bit more prominence with Carthage out of the picture. It would make sense. From what I've read Massalia was very Carthaginian in its structure (one city, highly mercantile, surrounded by an entirely different culture)

But its population was never all that high, was it?

Additionally, though, there's the question of what happens to the Empire when Alexander dies and what parts remain united. The Mediterranean effects will only show up if one power continues to hold the breadbaskets. If they're split up like OTL, then they're conquerable and will trade willingly. If Alexander does make more formal conquests in the Mediterranean, then his Empire is less Persia with Greece tacked on and more a seperate Greek sphere and a seperate Persian sphere (Egypt and Arabia might either be their own spheres or dominated by Greeks and Persians respectively).

Certainly something to take into account. I feel like I have a lot of leeway as to how the Empire eventually carves itself up, since it really took a whole cast of personalities to carve it up in the way it did. (Seleucus, Ptolemy, Antigonus, etc.)

As for after Alexander's death, I think that there's actually the possibility of it surviving him. The whole pretense for the breakup was the lack of an heir (to the strongest). Alexander's only legitimate son was, IIRC, killed by Cassander at the age of 1 shortly after his death.

Alexander inspired such respect in his generals that it's possible that they would honor his wishes and for the sake of Alexander's memory help his heir preserve it.

 

[Nicomacheus]

Very interesting. So Hellenization almost began a process of homogenization of Greek culture even on the peninsula.

It seems to me that this would all add up to a stronger, more centralized Greece, under (most likely) Macedonian suzerainty, no? Which certainly would make for an interesting dynamic post-Empire.

Yup. At the very least, Alexander's continued life mitigates revolts conceived in the aftermath of his death which allowed the old city state rivalries to re-ignite. If Alexander can enforce 30 years of peace and establish some kind of institution to promulgate quasi-federal or central authority without constantly resorting to garrisons, then you're well on your way.

One question that keeps coming up in my mind: Why was it that the Antipatrid dynasty was so antidemocratic?

For one, most Greeks were antidemocratic in the sense that they thought of democracy as we would think of socialism or communism. Demokratia was about the sheer force (the brute force of kratos rather than the more legal arche) of the popular will. The kind of democracy that was more regular Greek was really more extended oligarchy, perpetuated by small landholders in the many small poleis of Greece and the Aegean. These folks resented democrats because frequently democrats came from the city and they came from the country. Hence, farmers will they supported the equality within their citizen class and the political rights that they believed came with property, the notion of everyone (born in the city to the right parents) getting a vote they thought radical. Furthermore, Athens the most radical of democracies had given the whole system a very bad name by its empire in the 5th Century. Nevertheless, until the Macedonian conquest, there was still something of a dispute in Greek thought; indeed, Athens in the 4th century after 399 was more stable in its commitment to democracy than at any time in the 5th.

In any case, the Macedonians had historical reasons to resent the Athenians in particular; meddling with Athens eventually led to tampering with its constitution. Once Athenian democracy had been effectively neutered there wasn't really a clarion example of the practice. Furthermore, the organization of the Macedonian army, with its many different terms to describe specialized functions and the agemai which were elite units of those groups, suggests that part of the Alexandrian esprit-de-corps was a heavy dose of elitism. If you want to go whole hog, Alexander's association with Aristotle probably played a key role in that.

Additionally, it wasn't just the Antipatrids, but most of Greek thought and philosophy. And it's not that they installing despotic authoritarian governments (indeed, democracies could be just as despotic and authoritarian). The more interesting development is that of federal leagues gaining more state-like powers, in Achaea, Arcadia, and Rhodes -- this reflects something of a continued legacy of constitutional rule in Greece. It was overshadowed, though, by the proliferation of petty tyrannies, despotates, and the massive kingdoms of the Seleucids, Ptolemies, and Anipatrids.

Perhaps. I don't really know what advantage an independent league for Sicily would have over admittance into the League of Corinth, and vice versa. The only thing that I could see is that admitting Sicily into the League of Corinth would give the Athenians et al. a bit more control over one of the three breadbaskets. Which in and of itself would have its upsides and downsides.

A lot depends on the nature of Alexander's rule. For much of his OTL rule, the League of Corinth was mostly just a legal device. Macedonian dominance was ensured by garrisons of troops that could quickly control key areas (and often were based on the acropolises of key cities). If the Empire does last, the powers of the League would have to take on a greater import, if only as a convenient way to distract Greek politicians.

Massalia, Emporion, and the various Greek states on the Mediterranean (coastal Iberia and Gaul) are definitely a bit out of the way for even Alexander. I like the idea of Massalia being given a bit more prominence with Carthage out of the picture. It would make sense. From what I've read Massalia was very Carthaginian in its structure (one city, highly mercantile, surrounded by an entirely different culture)

But its population was never all that high, was it?

Certainly the cities you name weren't very large, but the growth of urban centers sometimes proceeded by different routes in those days. Furthermore, all of those cities were overshadowed by the larger centers of the established Roman Empire. If they have to fend for themselves, they may grow as a consequence. They may also end up teaching the Gauls/Celts urban life.

As for after Alexander's death, I think that there's actually the possibility of it surviving him. The whole pretense for the breakup was the lack of an heir (to the strongest). Alexander's only legitimate son was, IIRC, killed by Cassander at the age of 1 shortly after his death.

Alexander inspired such respect in his generals that it's possible that they would honor his wishes and for the sake of Alexander's memory help his heir preserve it.

Indeed, I didn't mean to suggest I thought the division inevitable, but so large an empire, covering extremes of climate and terrain, would be unwieldy if ever governed poorly.

How long would it take an army to travel from, say, Macedon to Mesopotamia? Or, alternatively, Macedonia to India? Without having to worry about conquering anything in between (it took Alexander a considerable amount of time because of that reason)

Rate of march depended on the terrain and the type of troops engaged in the march. My source, David Engels' Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army, credits Alexander's army with extraordinary flexibility and mobility. I can't recall what a Roman rate of march was, though.

In good, flat land, traveling long distances, the whole army could average about 13 miles per day, carrying about 10 days of provisions, with the need to rest every 5-7 days. It's best speed was between 19 and 23 miles per day (achieved most prominently when crossing the Sinai). If it was just light infantry (archers) and cavalry, though, those groups could achieve speeds of 30-45 miles per day.

Per diem rations required were:
Personnel: 3 lbs of grain a day, 1/2 gal (5 lbs) of water a day
Horses (including cavalry horses, baggage animals, and animals carrying provisions): 20 lbs of grain a day (perhaps as much as 10 from foraging, when available), 8 gal (80 lbs) of water a day.

Additionally, Engels suggests that Parmenio was Alexander's most trusted quartermaster general, but was sometimes replaced by Craterus or Erigyius.

Also, how much water did a ship generally cover in one day back in the 4th century BC?

I've just re-read this question. I thought you meant how much water did a ship carry, which confused me, since water is generally too heavy to be transported unless absolutely necessary. Even in the desert marches, the army was often charged with supplying the fleet with water.

Nevertheless, to your actual question. Based on the trials of the Olympias, a modern crew with about two weeks' training was able to acheive a sustained rowing speed of about 9 knots (a sprinting speed for them, but ancient sources suggest a speed at least 13-15 knots is possible for ramming speeds; minimum impact speed was about 10 knots). Cruising speed seems to have about 6 knots, though one reference from Xenephon suggests a speed of 7.6 knots. The primary difference between the classical trireme and Hellenistic ships (quinqueremes) was the addition of multiple rowers for each oar (triremes had only one per oar) to enable larger ships to make the minimum ramming speed. Presumambly this also helped to maintain cruising speeds.

Of course, these are naval vessels, not troop ships or merchant men. I know that Thucydides does differentiate between these three classes (or at least between naval vessels and troop ships). Presumably, a cargo vessel would travel much slower, since having three banks of rowers required prodigious amounts of skill, was quite expensive, and took up a lot of room. Some of the merchantmen relied on sails exclusively: Engels specifically mentions triconters with smaller crews only working the sails. I'm not sure of their speeds.

And one more thing: one a whim I did a Google books search. I found the book I'm refering to there as a limited book preview (it does have most of the intro intact, though unfortunately not the appendices, which is where the answers to your questions were): here's a link. Should be a good source, if taken correctly: Engels admits he's developing a hypothesis that fits the facts (according to his interpretation of them) rather than presenting the whole as fact. I for one find his portrait of Alexander as a meticulous planner rather incomplete, but it does present a good counterpoint to the idea of him as a reckless madman.

 

[Nicomacheus]

And now of course I've forgotten the bit about the Jews. As a remedy:

The political relationship in Judaea established by the Persians (under Artaxerxes) essentially allows for a wide degree of autonomy for a High Priest / ethnarch and a council of elders to rule the province (then pretty much just the environs of Jerusalem). Artaxerxes to establish this declared that the laws of the Torah were in Judaea the laws of the Persian Empire; this was part of the Persian policy of religious toleration (itself religiously motivated by a desire to cultivate the friendships of local peoples all over the Near East oppressed by previous conquers since the Assyrians and of course to win the affection of their deities). Even then, the Jewish population in Diaspora was significant even in Persian times, with significant communities existing in Babylon and parts of Egypt.

Under the Hellenic kingdoms, the Diaspora grew. A major factor determining who Hellenized in Judaea was literacy, which I'd imagine would probably correlate with wealth. Under the Ptolemies, the Jews of Alexandria (a substantial community) were so Hellenized that they were legally considered Hellenes (Hellenic, particularly Ptolemidic, law usually having very different rights and privileges for Hellenes from those for natives).

The events surrounding the Maccabees / Hasmonean Revolt depends on two factors. First, Antiochus IV needed money and wanted to make Hellenic culture more officially supported, which led to the natural policy of looting local temples. Second, the divide between Hellenizers and anti-Hellenizers among the Jews. At some point, a priest named either Joshua or Jason (or both) bribed Antiochus to make him High Priest in exchange for supporting both of Antiochus's goals. That led to a backlash among the anti-Hellenizing party, made worse when Jason's successor, Menelaus (I was wrong about Hercules, but Menelaus is pretty close) took matters further. This led to out and out action by the anti-Hellenizers, which in turn prompted Antiochus to ban Judaism all together, which united enough of the moderates and pro-Hellinzers with the anti-Hellenizers to produce the 25 year revolt.

One bit I'd forgotten is that the combination of the violent, bitter nature of the politics during the Hasmonean period (the Maccabees won their independence from Greek despots only to act like tyrants in their newly won land) with the growing Diaspora community played a large part in creating the sects that eventually produced Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity. [Note: the Diaspora dates at least to the Babylonian exile; when I say growing Diaspora community, I mean not just an increase in numbers, but more the increase in the sense that there's the community in Judaea and the community outside it and the continuing interaction between the two.] Nevertheless, even without the Hasmonean period, the core of the development toward Rabbinic Judaism was set in motion by the Babylonian Captivity, so it won't disappear as a result of butterflies but it should be altered. One of those alterations might well be a differing religious climate in the Near East at large, no matter what the developments among a small group of Semites with odd notions about single deities.

 

[Thermopylae]

Yup. At the very least, Alexander's continued life mitigates revolts conceived in the aftermath of his death which allowed the old city state rivalries to re-ignite. If Alexander can enforce 30 years of peace and establish some kind of institution to promulgate quasi-federal or central authority without constantly resorting to garrisons, then you're well on your way.

I'll need to study up on the League of Corinth, then. Was the League of Corinth under Alexander really very effective at getting all the Greek cities from constantly scheming against one another? Why did the League fail to survive Alexander in an effective capacity?

In any case, the Macedonians had historical reasons to resent the Athenians in particular; meddling with Athens eventually led to tampering with its constitution. Once Athenian democracy had been effectively neutered there wasn't really a clarion example of the practice. Furthermore, the organization of the Macedonian army, with its many different terms to describe specialized functions and the agemai which were elite units of those groups, suggests that part of the Alexandrian esprit-de-corps was a heavy dose of elitism. If you want to go whole hog, Alexander's association with Aristotle probably played a key role in that.

Okay, so a historical anti-democratic attitude in Macedon is what made the Macedonians so resentful of Athenian democracy (that and the whole nascent Athenian Empire thing a century before, I suppose). So the Macedonians were more traditionally monarchist? That is to say, none of this voting nonsense, what the king says goes?

Additionally, it wasn't just the Antipatrids, but most of Greek thought and philosophy. And it's not that they installing despotic authoritarian governments (indeed, democracies could be just as despotic and authoritarian). The more interesting development is that of federal leagues gaining more state-like powers, in Achaea, Arcadia, and Rhodes -- this reflects something of a continued legacy of constitutional rule in Greece. It was overshadowed, though, by the proliferation of petty tyrannies, despotates, and the massive kingdoms of the Seleucids, Ptolemies, and Anipatrids.

So the democracies in Greece were more or less safe during the reign of Alexander, under the (Macedonian-dominated) League of Corinth, and it was only during the chaotic aftermath that the League broke up and the petty tyrants/despots took control?

A lot depends on the nature of Alexander's rule. For much of his OTL rule, the League of Corinth was mostly just a legal device. Macedonian dominance was ensured by garrisons of troops that could quickly control key areas (and often were based on the acropolises of key cities). If the Empire does last, the powers of the League would have to take on a greater import, if only as a convenient way to distract Greek politicians.

Indeed, a quick look at Wikipedia shows that the League, while effective at keeping the peace between members, didn't really have anything resembling a kind of federal government. The Synedrion was an Assembly of representatives of league members, but nothing particularly centralized.

Certainly the cities you name weren't very large, but the growth of urban centers sometimes proceeded by different routes in those days. Furthermore, all of those cities were overshadowed by the larger centers of the established Roman Empire. If they have to fend for themselves, they may grow as a consequence. They may also end up teaching the Gauls/Celts urban life.

IIRC, among the southern Gauls (Arverni, et al.) around the time of Caesar's conquest, there were traces of urbanization beginning (cities [oppida] dominating the surrounding countryside, almost Greek, really).

Indeed, I didn't mean to suggest I thought the division inevitable, but so large an empire, covering extremes of climate and terrain, would be unwieldy if ever governed poorly.

Indeed. The TL has begun to form in my head a little bit, and I can't seem to see it lasting more than 100 years before smashing to pieces.

Rate of march depended on the terrain and the type of troops engaged in the march. <snip>

This is good to know, thank you, I now have a crucial piece of information.

I notice that any Arabian campaign would be made quite difficult by the 8 gallons of water per day. Clearly he could support only a small army in such a situation, not the kind of army he dragged through India. After his grueling march through the Gedrosian desert, I'm sure he would be keen on not repeating the same mistakes.

If this is the case, then clearly he would want his best-trained troops, and have as many veterans as possible. Supporting cavalry would be even more difficult, but certainly doable.

So Alexander's order of battle in Arabia would probably be very heavy in light infantry (skirmishing troops, whom I imagine he would draw from among the Persians), archers (again, probably from Persia), but have of course a small, crack corps of Macedonians, mostly infantry.

Of course, I'm sure the Arabs didn't have massive hordes lying in wait just in case a Macedonian was looking for a fight, so a small army probably wouldn't be a huge disadvantage. Not to mention he could probably draw on locals to bolster his ranks.

Nevertheless, to your actual question. <snip>

Very useful, thank you!

Taking this into account, I think the least amount of time Alexander would need to take for his Arabian campaign would be 1 1/2 years, after waiting in Babylon a bit to gather his troops.

And now of course I've forgotten the bit about the Jews. As a remedy: <snip>

I can definitely see things still coming to a head between the Hellenizers and anti-Hellenizers, but the absolute implosion that occurred between the Greeks and the Jews IOTL seems to really have hinged upon the actions of a relatively small group of individuals.

So, assuming that the revolt does not occur, and you don't have a Hasmonean period, what seems to me likely to happen is that you don't have the absolute flight and enlargement of the diaspora, but you would have a strengthening of ties between the Jewish communities in the Eastern/southeastern Mediterranean areas. The diaspora would remain smaller, but Judaism itself would become a little less centralized.

Of course, I'm open to input.

 

[DAv]

Quick question, how long are you planning on taking this TL?

Also, about the Jews, would they grow to eventually start a movement against Greek influence? Particularly after the death of Alexander?

 

[Thermopylae]

Quick question, how long are you planning on taking this TL?

As far as I feel like, really. At least to 476 AD (the date of OTL's fall of the Roman Empire). But if I feel up to it, all the way to 2009 AD.

Also, about the Jews, would they grow to eventually start a movement against Greek influence? Particularly after the death of Alexander?

Certainly. As Nichomacheus pointed out, Hellenized Jews tended to be well off while the anti-Hellenic Jews tended to be poorer (though this is certainly not always the case).

I could easily imagine, after years of misrule by the ruling Hellenized Jews, a sort of populist rebellion could occur. The conflict between Hellenized and non-Hellenized Jews was as much philosophical as it was political, and it could take a lot of interesting twists and turns.

 

[Thermopylae]

Here's a little preview of what I'm working on:

As Befits A King

Babylon, 10 June 323 B.C.

From Anabasis Alexandri, Arrian of Nicomedia, 7.26

The Royal Diary also says that Peithon, Attalus, Demophon, and Peucestas, as well as Cleomenes, Menidas, and Seleucus, slept in the temple of Serapis, and asked the god whether it would be better and more desirable for Alexander to be carried into his temple, in order as a suppliant to be cured by him. A voice issued from the god saying that he was indeed to be carried into the temple, and that it would not be better for him to remain where he was. This answer was reported by the Companions; and soon after the fever of Alexander broke, as if after all, this were now the better thing.

Despite all portents to the contrary, Alexander's fever broke early in the morning on 11 June, 323 B.C. He remained in Babylon for two weeks in order to fully recover, and on 25 June he rendezvoused with his army on the Persian Gulf, fully prepared for his expedition around Arabia. Alexander was not without friends already on the Persian Gulf. Nearchus, during his exploration of Arabia at Alexander's behest, visited and much impressed the people of Tylos (Bahrain). Tylos was to serve as the first forward base of the campaign.

Alexander's initial order of battle was an army of just 7,000. Armies, no matter how well-provisioned, ended up essentially living off the land. After the grueling trek through the Gedrosian desert, Alexander realized that he had to specialize his army for a desert campaign. To this end, he brought only 600 cavalry (the core of his Companion bodyguards), as the horses consumed far much more water than men did.

On 28 June, the fleet set off. On 4 July the fleet reached Tylos. The arrival of Alexander was much hailed, and the island offered to Alexander their complete fealty upon seeing the size of the fleet. On 7 July Alexander took his fleet (sans army) to Gerrha, a port city less than a day's sail southwest of Tylos. Upon seeing the size of the Macedonian fleet, the people of Gerrha likewise offered up total fealty to Alexander. Alexander established a small garrison at Tylos.

On 9 July, the fleet and army departed and began a tour of the entire coast up to the Straits of Hormuz. All of these locations had been visited by Nearchus before during his return from India, and so Alexander encountered precious little resistance. Gerrha and Tylos (which itself had been under Gerrhaean suzerainty) were the real centers of power on the Arabian coastline from Alexandria in Susiana (Charax) to the Straits of Hormuz, and so the campaign along this particular coast was highly uneventful.

On 19 July the army reached the Straits of Hormuz, where they rested. Along the way Alexander needed only show the small Arabian ports the size of his fleet, and their capitulation swiftly followed.

For 10 days they rested. The land was abundant, and the region was famous for its cultivation of dates. So enamored with the land was Alexander taht he announced his intent to settle Greeks at the location, to be named Alexandria in Near Arabia.

However on the fifth day, an emissary from the ruler of the city of Mascat came to Alexander. The ruler of Mascat asked Alexander what his business was in his land, for the ruler of Mascat controlled the coast from the Straits of Hormuz, all the way to the land of Hadhramaut, in the middle of Arabia's southern coast. Alexander replied that, since the Arabs were the only people in all the world to have never sent an embassy to him, he felt it fit that he visit these lands to discover if they had any reason to not send an embassy. On the seventh day the emissary returned, requesting Alexander return immediately to his own land. Alexander respectfully declined, and on 30 July set out for the city of Mascat.

On 1 August the fleet unloaded the army within a day's march of the city of Mascat, and Alexander sent an emissary requesting that his army be let into the city of Mascat. The ruler of Mascat refused, and a battle ensued on 3 August. Alexander's battle-hardened army prevailed readily over the veritable militia fielded by Mascat. On 4 August Alexander entered the city, and instead of putting the city's ruler to the sword, commended him on his bravery for taking on so powerful a foe.

This move was more political than anything else. Now that he was beyond the Straits of Hormuz he needed a friendly port to which he would be able to return, and from which he could supply his army. Mascat was a wealthy land, being in control of the spice trade between India and Mesopotamia, and could easily support Alexander's small army. With the establishment of a permanent garrison in Mascat, Mascat was fully incorporated as a satrapy of Alexander's empire. Additionally from Mascat Alexander would be able to receive news of the happenings in the new Indus satrapies far more quickly than before.

The ruler of Mascat was able to provide Alexander with some crucial information regarding the rest of Alexander's campaign. He told him that the kingdoms of Hadhramaut, Qataban, and Ma'in, along the southern and southwestern coasts of Arabia, were significantly more powerful than Mascat, and that he would do well to consider proceeding with a larger force (now ~6,500, around 400 of whom were currently vacationing in Tylos).

The king of Mascat offered 1,000 of his best troops (light infantry), which Alexander promptly accepted. Alexander believed that he would require an additional 2,500 Macedonians, to bring the size of his army to roughly 10,000. In addition he would need to eventually bring more Greeks to colonize the various major ports of southern Arabia, but for the time being felt an additional 2,500 Macedonians would suit his purposes.

Alexander also learned that the best time to campaign in this part of the world began in November and ended in March. It was during this time that the temperatures would be coolest. Alexander had more or less avoided the problem of desert campaigning by transporting his army mostly by sea. Indeed the army, all told, had done very little actual marching.

NOTES: I'm really kind of guessing as to the size of Mascat's army. The city of Mascat today has just over 700,000 people, which as far as world cities goes, isn't really all that large. So in 323 B.C. I imagine it's not a particularly large city as well.

I'd also imagine that the armies of Arabia would be very light infantry- and archer-heavy, given water restrictions, with little to no cavalry.

I really want to give the ruler of Mascat a name, but alas, pre-Islamic Arabic names are quite difficult to come by.

 

[Nicomacheus]

Awesome. So you're going to put forward your posts as excerpts from Historians? Are you just going to keep to your own versions of those Historians that survived OTL or introduce some that didn't and alternative versions of those that did?

 

[Thermopylae]

Awesome. So you're going to put forward your posts as excerpts from Historians? Are you just going to keep to your own versions of those Historians that survived OTL or introduce some that didn't and alternative versions of those that did?

Well, the italicized part is a play on the actual passage from Arrian of Nicomedia's Anabasis Alexandri. Compare what I posted with:

The Royal Diary also says that Peithon, Attalus, Demophon, and Peucestas, as well as Cleomenes, Menidas, and Seleucus, slept in the temple of Serapis, and asked the god whether it would be better and more desirable for Alexander to be carried into his temple, in order as a suppliant to be cured by him. A voice issued from the god saying that he was not to be carried into the temple, but that it would be better for him to remain where be was. This answer was reported by the Companions; and soon after Alexander died, as if after all, this were now the better thing.

The rest I just wrote on my own, not trying to emulate a historian, but that's actually a really good idea, I think I'll do that, and mix it in with some narrative stuff (to keep it fresh).

Actually, what with Arrian being born IOTL ca. 86 AD, the butterflies would probably do away with him. I suppose this would be some alt-Arrian from some alt-Nicomedia.

 

[DAv]

Are you using the B.C figure as it's easiest to use or will there be Jesus (Or someone very much like Jesus) in this TL?

 

[Thermopylae]

Are you using the B.C figure as it's easiest to use or will there be Jesus (Or someone very much like Jesus) in this TL?

I'm using it for its ease, I really don't know what I could replace it with (not AUC). Jesus is probably going to be butterflied away. Though, that's not to say a Messianic Jewish religion couldn't spring up ITTL as well.